1290 Transformers

[damiafix]

Hi,
I'm buyng the transformers for my 1290 Clone. I was oriented to
a Carnhill VTB9045 for the INPUT stage and a Sowter 8751 for the OUTPUT stage. My problem is where to buy the Carnhill transformers, I sent a email to the Carnhill but don't have received reply. So I've decided to buy a Lundhal LL1538 or a LL1538XL. What do you think of this configuration?
The Lundhal LL1538 is used in the FocusRite Preampls, it seems to be a good transformer.
In this post you can see some image of the Lundhal LL1538 used in a Red8 FocusRite.



Regards, Damiano

 

[louder]

alo damiano
if you are making a 1290,why are you refering a focusrite?.
sure those lundhall`s are good,i used one in my 99v.
for the 1290 and that kind of pre,you have several options:
jlm audio,in and out,sowter in(9145),linx trannys(brazil)and i think there`s more.
there`s a thread that tell us what tranny`s for which circuit.
best regards
pedro

 

[damiafix]

Hi Louder very thanks for your reply,
in this post there are this info's:

Neve 1272, 1290, or 1063/73 minus EQ

mic input Marinair T1444; T1454;
St. Ives VT22670.
Carnhill (who purchased St. Ives) VTB9045
Sowter 9145
JLM Audio 1:4 ? Two of them as a seriesarallel (1:2) or parallelarallel (1:4) pair.
Lundahl LL1538 ? Change cap on the secondary from 180pF to 390pF.
- OEP A262A3E ? Wired for seriesarallel (1:3.225).
- or use half of 31267 in reverse for 1:2

line input Marinair T1422; T1442; T1452;
St. Ives VT22671.
Carnhill VTB9046
Sowter 9165

output Marinair LO1166,
St. Ives VT23326(?).
Carnhill VTB9049 (original replacement), VTB1148 (narrow for rack mounting), or VTB1847 (PCB version w/breakout leads).
Sowter 8751 (regular size), or 9160 (narrow version for 1RU cases).
- JLM Audio 1:1:1DC ? Does not require zobel network of 1.5k & .01uF or 600 ohm load on the secondary.

My question is who is the best combination IN/OUT transformers for my 1290? Someone prefer Carnhill/Sowter others Jml/Jml, others again Sowter/Sowter but who is the sound difference?
I must to buy all the transformers and then to try one to one? :razz:

Regards, Damiano :razz: :wink:

 

[CJ]

Just from a dis-assembly point of view, not much diff between the black T series and and the green 31267 types except a better can on the T's.
St Ives forgot to reverse wind, so skip them.

The output is just a power transformer in disguise, coarse and brutal, pick the core stack you want. Sowter makes different stacks, Lynx has their monster stack, does it need to fit in a 1 U case? Sometimes geometry comes first.
Bigger stack means more bass, but more current needed to excite the core, not a problem for the 3055.


Carnhill does not flip mandrels either, but not much diff on the non reversed

 

[Tekay]

Carnhill makes a special output transformer for AMS-Neve, the VTB1982, don't know if it has the reversed winding but I'll check that out! and don't know it it's available for the public.

Carnhill vs Marinairs, Marinair is just a little fatter in the bottom end, IMO the big difference is that the character lays in the lower mid(100-300Hz) with the Marinair and in the middle part of the mid (250-500Hz) with the Carnhill reissue.(vtb9049/1148) We tested 3 types of gapped transfomers and it was easiest to tell the difference with a piano or acoustic guitar playing the same chord over and over again.
The third transformer which is still just a test ex didn't have that much mid character but it was fat as hell in the low end, must be perfect for bass recording
will let you know more about the third one when it's official.

 

[b2]

Hi,

for 1290 and 1073 ,I'm using 9145 sowter transformers at input and 8751 or 9160 Sowter for the output,they works fine,I like the kind of sound they give in this preamp.


b2.

 

[damiafix]

Hi guys,

X Cj: I think that I will made a 2U Case, so for my necessity is eventually good a 8751
X B2: Thanks for your testimoniance
X Family Hoof: I will search also a 10468 original transfomer to ebay.Thanks

A question for Thomas:
Where I can buy the Carnhill trasformers?




Regards, Damiano

 

[Family Hoof]

[quote author="Family Hoof"]Carnhill does not respond to e-mails so you have to call them.[/quote]

 

[Tekay]

Try call Carnhill, I only sell to the Scandinavian countries if I have any spare.

 

[CJ]

I would like to find out about the 10468.
If anybody has one cheap, that would be cool to find out what the difference is.

I have an API input getting hacked tonight. I think it's from a famous console or something. Supposedly different from 2622 stock version.

 

[Kev]

short comment about the JLM input trafo

although 1:1 will work I think Joe talks about using two to make a step up for a closer fit to 1290

I'm sure there is a PDF with a wiring layout for his Micro1290 and shows 2 input trafos and the gapped output trafo.

can someone confirm this for me ?

 

[matta]

Confirmed!

Here you go: http://www.jlmaudio.com/JLM 1290 wiring overlay.pdf

Matt

 

[damiafix]

Hi,
A little question:

the Marinair 10368 it's good for my 1290? Who's his caracter?

Regards, Damiano

 

[tommypiper]

[quote author="CJ"]
St Ives forgot to reverse wind, so skip them.
[/quote]

CJ, what's your take on how the reverse wind effects performance? Does this effect noise rejection? AND tone/freq. response, "sound / character?" Or is it just better noise rejection?

It's interesting, there are plenty of original modules and desks out there with the St. Ives 31267s and they apparently work and sound fine. I can see St. Ives decided to skip/change the reverse wind for build efficiency if it didn't change the performance.

If it was only a noise rejection issue they just had to clear that it wouldn't be a problem in the specific modules, yet it could be a problem in another application. Or maybe it was just so wild and fast in those days they got away with it and no one noticed or cared? But my impression is Neve had pretty rigorous quality control.

IIRC, I believe I saw Geoff T. posting somewhere that the Neve company had no opinion at the time about which was better for 31267s between St. Ives and Marinair, and treated them more or less as equals. Maybe someone remembers better than I or has more info.

cheers,
tommypiper

 

[Family Hoof]

[quote author="damiafix"]Hi,
A little question:

the Marinair 10368 it's good for my 1290? Who's his caracter?

Regards, Damiano[/quote]
I once tested every permutation of a 10368 being used as mic input to a BA283AV and I found that wired 1k2:2k4, forwards, for a 3dB stepup was the best result. The character is very mellow with a subdued high end and extended low end. Note that the secondary Z is half that of a 10468, but I terminated it the same (5k). I actually liked it better than 10468 for many applications, but because this is a line input transformer the DCR is too high for some mics. Ribbons in particular sound small and tinny through it I'm told.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Family Hoof"]I once tested every permutation of a 10368 being used as mic input to a BA283AV and I found that wired 1k2:2k4, forwards, for a 3dB stepup was the best result.

Note that the secondary Z is half that of a 10468, but I terminated it the same (5k). I actually liked it better than 10468 for many applications, but because this is a line input transformer the DCR is too high for some mics. Ribbons in particular sound small and tinny through it I'm told.[/quote]
Thanks for bringing this up !
Sounds like the 10368 & then also the 31267 are then just better completely skipped for mic-input-use, since why restricting a nice clone from ribbon use ?

http://www.technicalaudio.com/reading/neve_xfmrs/neve_edo7113.html

I'm told

Has anyone experienced this as well ?

I'll check the other candidates from http://www.jlmaudio.com/Neve transformer info.htm again with this in mind. Might be back to the A262A3E that's around already at first & then substitute with an intended mic-TX like Sowter etc.


Thanks !

Peter

 

[Flatpicker]

[quote author="clintrubber"]...& then also the 31267 are then just better completely skipped for mic-input-use, [/quote]
No, according to Joe's findings, the 31267 is very similar to the 10468. Notice that using only one primary coil and only one secondary coil of the 31267 in reverse gives you the same DCR as using the 10468 in series - you just loose the humbucking ability of the second coil as Joe points out.

Looks like you could get the same DCR ratios with the 10368 by using it backwards with the primary in series and using only one of the secondary coils. Jens, did you try it this way?

 

[Family Hoof]

[quote author="Family Hoof"]...& then also the 31267 are then just better completely skipped for mic-input-use, [/quote]
Hey, I never said that!

Yes, I've read JLM's findings many times, which is largely what encouraged me to try all these options myself. Theory is great, but it doesn't mean shit until you build the box, plug in some mics, and hit record.

I never had good results with half the 31267 backwards. It didn't sound the same as the 10468, especially in low end, IIRC, and the hum susceptability made it useless. As for using an odd number of windings on any of these three transformers I found that it absolutely will not work at all. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to tell you why.

 

[Flatpicker]

[quote author="Family Hoof"]Hey, I never said that![/quote]
Whoops! Sorry, I forgot to remove your reply quotes.

Hey, this is my 1K post! I guess that and ~$1 might buy my a cup of coffee, lol!

 

[CJ]

Fresh meat on the way! :twisted: